smartgym_unarchive_routine

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that 'dry_run=true sends NOTHING', which matters a lot for a destructive tool — but it omits that dry_run defaults to true and says nothing about reversibility or failure modes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two very short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and zero padding. The 'dry_run=true sends NOTHING' phrasing is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, but it is efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a destructive, non-idempotent operation whose dry_run flag defaults to true, the description should state the default and the effect of a real run; it does not.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It explains dry_run's effect ('sends NOTHING') but gives no meaning at all for the required 'routine' parameter (id? name? format?), leaving half the parameters undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Bring an archived routine back to the active list') that is immediately distinguishable from the inverse sibling smartgym_archive_routines. The scope (archived -> active) is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the state transition described, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. routine must currently be archived), and no pointer to alternatives. Adequate but with clear gaps.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.